To: santer1@llnl.gov
Subject: An issue/problem with Tim's idea !!!!!!!
Date: Thu Jan 10 16:14:28 2008
Ben,
Tim's idea is a possibility. I've not always got on that well great
with Glenn McGregor, but Tim seems to have a reasonable rapport
with him. Dian has suggested that this would be the best route - it
is the logical one. I also think that Glenn would get quick reviews, as
Tim thinks he realises he's made a mistake.
Tim has let me into part of secret. Glenn said the paper had two
reviews - one positive, the other said it wasn't great, but would leave it
up to the editor's discretion. This is why Glenn knows he made the wrong
choice.
The problem !! The person who said they would leave it to the editor's
discretion is on your email list! I don't know who it is - Tim does -
maybe they have told you? I don't want to put pressure on Tim. He
doesn't know I'm sending this. It isn't me by the way - nor Tim !
Tim said it was someone who hasn't contributed to the discussion -
which does narrow the possibilities down!
Tim/Glenn discussed getting quick reviews. Whoever this person
is they could be the familiar reviewer - and we could then come up
with another reasonable name (Kevin - he does everything at the
speed of light) as the two reviewers.
Colour in IJC costs a bit, but I'm sure we can lean on Glenn.
Also we can just have colour in the pdf.
I'll now send a few thoughts on the figures!
Cheers
Phil
Tom Wigley , Karl Taylor ,
Thomas R Karl ,
John Lanzante , carl mears ,
"David C. Bader" ,
"'Francis W. Zwiers'" ,
Frank Wentz ,
Leopold Haimberger ,
Melissa Free ,
"Michael C. MacCracken" ,
"'Philip D. Jones'" ,
Steven Sherwood ,
Steve Klein , 'Susan Solomon' ,
"Thorne, Peter" ,
Tim Osborn , Gavin Schmidt ,
"Hack, James J."
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:00:39 +0000
To: santer1@llnl.gov,"'Philip D. Jones'"
From: Tim Osborn
Subject: Re: Update on response to Douglass et al.
At 03:52 10/01/2008, Ben Santer wrote:
...Much as I would like to see a high-profile rebuttal of Douglass et al. in a journal
like Science or Nature, it's unlikely that either journal will publish such a rebuttal.
So what are our options? Personally, I'd vote for GRL. I think that it is important to
publish an expeditious response to the statistical flaws in Douglass et al. In theory,
GRL should be able to give us the desired fast turnaround time...
Why not go for publication of a response in IJC? According to Phil, this option would
probably take too long. I'd be interested to hear any other thoughts you might have on
publication options.
Hi Ben and Phil,
as you may know (Phil certainly knows), I'm on the editorial board of IJC. Phil is
right that it can be rather slow (though faster than certain other climate journals!).
Nevertheless, IJC really is the preferred place to publish (though a downside is that
Douglass et al. may have the opportunity to have a response considered to accompany any
comment).
I just contacted the editor, Glenn McGregor, to see what he can do. He promises to do
everything he can to achieve a quick turn-around time (he didn't quantify this) and he
will also "ask (the publishers) for priority in terms of getting the paper online asap
after the authors have received proofs". He genuinely seems keen to correct the
scientific record as quickly as possible.
He also said (and please treat this in confidence, which is why I emailed to you and
Phil only) that he may be able to hold back the hardcopy (i.e. the print/paper version)
appearance of Douglass et al., possibly so that any accepted Santer et al. comment could
appear alongside it. Presumably depends on speed of the review process.
If this does persuade you to go with IJC, Glenn suggested that I could help (because he
is in Kathmandu at present) with achieving the quick turn-around time by identifying in
advance reviewers who are both suitable and available. Obviously one reviewer could be
someone who is already familiar with this discussion, because that would enable a fast
review - i.e., someone on the email list you've been using - though I don't know which
of these people you will be asking to be co-authors and hence which won't be available
as possible reviewers. For objectivity the other reviewer would need to be independent,
but you could still suggest suitable names.
Well, that's my thoughts... let me know what you decide.
Cheers
Tim
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784
web: [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm